#Appellate Procedure

The ITAT Delhi has held that dismissing a tax appeal ex-parte without addressing merits or providing reasons violates Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, which mandates reasoned appellate orders. This ruling reinforces that procedural fairness cannot be sacrificed even when notices are allegedly missed, and sets a precedent for taxpayers facing technical dismissals due to administrative or personal hardship.

ITAT Delhi has ruled that a 175-day delay in filing an income tax appeal must be condoned when the delay stems from genuine hardship, affirming that procedural rigidity cannot override the core principle of substantial justice. This reinforces that appellate authorities must interpret condonation provisions liberally to ensure access to justice for taxpayers, especially where no prejudice is shown to the revenue.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court suspended the custodial sentence of a convict under POCSO and IPC, recognizing that four years of pre-appeal detention, combined with the prosecutrix’s testimony of consensual cohabitation, rendered continued incarceration disproportionate. This sets a critical precedent for balancing punitive intent with personal liberty in prolonged POCSO appeals where factual nuances challenge the presumption of non-consent.

The Rajasthan High Court has struck down the imposition of monetary deposits as a condition for suspending sentences under BNSS Section 430 in cheque bounce cases, affirming that such conditions exceed statutory authority and violate the principle of proportionality. This ruling protects accused persons from financial coercion during appellate stays and clarifies the limits of appellate courts’ discretion in bail-related orders.

The ITAT Bangalore has set aside a CIT(A) order for violating natural justice by dismissing an appeal without examining the assessee’s written submissions or evidence, reinforcing that appellate authorities must engage with arguments presented - not merely rubber-stamp assessments. This ruling protects taxpayers from summary rejections and mandates reasoned appellate decision-making under the Income Tax Act.

ITAT Bangalore rules that assessees filing tax appeals within 90 days from 01.03.2022 are not barred by limitation, citing COVID-19 suo motu directions. The tribunal remands the case for merit-based adjudication, reinforcing the applicability of pandemic-related extensions in tax litigation.

ITAT Pune holds that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) cannot dismiss appeals merely for non-prosecution but must adjudicate grounds on merit under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The ruling reinforces the obligation of appellate authorities to ensure substantive justice, impacting taxpayers facing procedural dismissals.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that appellate courts cannot uphold decrees based on additional documents produced under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC when the opposing party was absent and denied any opportunity to rebut or cross-examine. This reinforces natural justice as a non-negotiable pillar in civil appellate proceedings, protecting litigants from surprise judgments grounded in untested evidence.

The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that a petitioner's statutory right to have a criminal appeal heard on merits cannot be nullified solely due to failure to deposit 20% compensation within the stipulated time, even if an extension was previously denied. The court emphasized that financial hardship and health issues, if bona fide, must not deprive an accused of appellate review, provided the amount is deposited within a final extended deadline.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that a plaintiff’s delayed suit filing does not negate readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, reinforcing that procedural delays alone cannot defeat a claim for specific performance. The Court also rejected belated additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, emphasizing strict compliance with appellate procedural rules in property disputes.

The ITAT Guwahati set aside the CIT(A)'s order for failing to provide any reasoning, ruling that non-appearance by the assessee does not absolve the appellate authority of its statutory duty to pass a speaking order. This reinforces that procedural fairness under Section 250(6) is non-negotiable - authorities cannot evade substantive adjudication by ignoring submissions or remaining silent.

The Kerala High Court holds that where the Debt Recovery Tribunal has not yet determined the exact debt amount, the pre-deposit required to file an appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act must be based on the secured creditor’s claimed amount, not an arbitrary or lower figure. This ensures creditors cannot be unfairly delayed in enforcement while protecting borrowers from speculative deposits, setting a clear benchmark for appellate compliance across Indian banks and financial institutions.

CESTAT Chennai has ruled that rejecting customs appeals solely on limitation grounds without ascertaining the exact date of communication of the original order violates natural justice. This sets a binding precedent for appellate authorities to examine procedural fairness before dismissing appeals, protecting appellants from arbitrary time-bar rejections based on incomplete records.

The Karnataka High Court ruled that amendments to pleadings under CPC Order VI Rule 17 cannot be adjudicated independently while the main appeal remains pending. The court emphasized that both must be decided together to maintain procedural integrity and avoid fragmented litigation.

MP High Court sets aside an order rejecting a victim’s appeal under Section 372 CrPC, emphasizing that lower courts must reconsider appeals in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Celestium Financial. The decision reaffirms that victims have a statutory right to challenge acquittals without requiring special leave, strengthening appellate access in criminal proceedings.